Medicare payment trends compared to inflation for anesthesia services.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: Identify changes and trends in the real value of Medicare payments for anesthesia services between 2000 and 2020 and how it may affect practices. DESIGN: Retrospective analysis. SETTING: We utilized the Physician/Supplier Procedure Summary (PSPS) datasets of Medicare Part B claims to identify high volume anesthesia services in 2020 with 20 years of data. The Consumer Price Index was used as a measure of inflation to adjust prices. PATIENTS: The PSPS datasets contain summaries of all annual Medicare Part B claims and payment amounts by carrier and locality. INTERVENTIONS: Patients receiving anesthesia services. MEASUREMENTS: For each service, identified by Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) codes, we trended the average Medicare payment per procedure from 2000 to 2020 and calculated year to year changes and compound annual growth rate (CAGR). We also evaluated base and time units for each CPT code and the national Medicare anesthesia conversion factor (CF) for the same years. MAIN RESULTS: The average Medicare payment in the study sample increased 20.1% from 2000 to 2020. After adjusting for inflation, the average Medicare payment per anesthesia service decreased by 20.8% over that period. The Medicare anesthesia CF increased 24.9% in the same period, and after adjusting for inflation, the real value of the CF decreased 16.9%. Average CAGR across the 20 anesthesia services was 0.88%, compared to the average annual inflation at 2.06%. CONCLUSIONS: Average Medicare payment for common anesthesia services after adjusting for inflation have decreased from 2000 to 2020, consistent with findings in other physician specialties. Understanding these trends is important for practice viability and suggests significant financial implications for anesthesia practices and hospitals if the trend were to continue.

Redeployment of Health Care Workers in the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Qualitative Study of Health System Leaders' Strategies.

OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to determine the strategies used and critical considerations among an international sample of hospital leaders when mobilizing human resources in response to the clinical demands associated with the COVID-19 pandemic surge. METHODS: This was a cross-sectional, qualitative research study designed to investigate strategies used by health system leaders from around the world when mobilizing human resources in response to the global COVD-19 pandemic. Prospective interviewees were identified through nonprobability and purposive sampling methods from May to July 2020. The primary outcomes were the critical considerations, as perceived by health system leaders, when redeploying health care workers during the COVID-19 pandemic determined through thematic analysis of transcribed notes. Redeployment was defined as reassigning personnel to a different location or retraining personnel for a different task. RESULTS: Nine hospital leaders from 9 hospitals in 8 health systems located in 5 countries (United States, United Kingdom, New Zealand, Singapore, and South Korea) were interviewed. Six hospitals in 5 health systems experienced a surge of critically ill patients with COVID-19, and the remaining 3 hospitals anticipated, but did not experience, a similar surge. Seven of 8 hospitals redeployed their health care workforce, and 1 had a redeployment plan in place but did not need to use it. Thematic analysis of the interview notes identified 3 themes representing effective practices and lessons learned when preparing and executing workforce redeployment: process, leadership, and communication. Critical considerations within each theme were identified. Because of the various expertise of redeployed personnel, retraining had to be customized and a decentralized flexible strategy was implemented. There were 3 concerns regarding redeployed personnel. These included the fear of becoming infected, the concern over their skills and patient safety, and concerns regarding professional loss (such as loss of education opportunities in their chosen profession). Transparency via multiple different types of communications is important to prevent the development of doubt and rumors. CONCLUSIONS: Redeployment strategies should critically consider the process of redeploying and supporting the health care workforce, decentralized leadership that encourages and supports local implementation of system-wide plans, and communication that is transparent, regular, consistent, and informed by data.

Development of a Novel and Scalable Simulation-Based Teamwork Training Model Using Within-Group Debriefing of Observed Video Simulation.

THE CHALLENGE: Effective teamwork and communication skills are essential for safe and reliable health care. These skills require training and practice. Experiential learning is optimal for training adults, and the industry has recognized simulation training as an exemplar of this approach. Yet despite decades of investment, this training is inaccessible and underutilized for most of the more than 12 million health care professionals in the United States. DESIGNING A SOLUTION: This report describes the design process of an adapted simulation training created to overcome the key barriers to scaling simulation-based teamwork training: access to technology, time away from clinical work, and availability of trained simulation educators. The prototype training is designed for delivery in one-hour segments and relies on observation of video simulation scenarios and within-group debriefing, which are promising variations on traditional simulation training. To our knowledge, these two simulation approaches have not been previously combined. The resulting prototype minimizes the need for an on-site trained simulation educator. This report details the development of a training model, its subsequent modification based on pilot testing, and the evaluation of the resulting redesigned prototype. PRELIMINARY EVALUATION: Participant evaluations of the redesigned prototype were highly positive, with 92% reporting that they would like to participate in additional, similar training sessions. Positive results were also found in assessment of feasibility, acceptability, psychological safety, and behavioral intention (reported intention to alter behavior).

Alternatives to High-Fidelity Simulation.

Simulation-based education improves health care professionals' performance in managing critical events. Limitations to widespread uptake of high-fidelity simulation include barriers related to training, technology, and time. Alternatives to high-fidelity simulation that overcome these barriers include in situ simulation, classroom-based simulation, telesimulation, observed simulation, screen-based simulation, and game-based simulation. Some settings have limited access to onsite expert facilitation to design, implement, and guide participants through simulation-based education. Alternatives to onsite expert debriefing in these settings include teledebriefing, scripted debriefing, and within-group debriefing. A combination of these alternatives promotes successful implementation and maintenance of simulation-based education for managing critical health care events.

Cognitive Aids in the Management of Critical Events.

Critical events are rare and stressful. These properties make reliance on memory for clinical management highly susceptible to failure. In the past 10 to 20 years, health care has begun to accept the experience of aviation and other high-reliability organizations in addressing failure to rescue from these events through a combination of practice through simulation and the introduction of cognitive aids, known as checklists or emergency manuals. Cognitive aids have a persuasive body of evidence from simulation studies to establish their value in improving clinician performance. However, their introduction to practice is more complex than distribution of the tools.

Comparing the Learning Effectiveness of Healthcare Simulation in the Observer Versus Active Role: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

STATEMENT: The benefits of observation in simulation-based education in healthcare are increasingly recognized. However, how it compares with active participation remains unclear. We aimed to compare effectiveness of observation versus active participation through a systematic review and meta-analysis. Effectiveness was defined using Kirkpatrick's 4-level model, namely, participants' reactions, learning outcomes, behavior changes, and patient outcomes. The peer-reviewed search strategy included 8 major databases and gray literature. Only randomized controlled trials were included. A total of 13 trials were included (426 active participants and 374 observers). There was no significant difference in reactions (Kirkpatrick level 1) to training between groups, but active participants learned (Kirkpatrick level 2) significantly better than observers (standardized mean difference = -0.2, 95% confidence interval = -0.37 to -0.02, P = 0.03). Only one study reported behavior change (Kirkpatrick level 3) and found no significant difference. No studies reported effects on patient outcomes (Kirkpatrick level 4). Further research is needed to understand how to effectively integrate and leverage the benefits of observation in simulation-based education in healthcare.

Factors associated with the use of cognitive aids in operating room crises: a cross-sectional study of US hospitals and ambulatory surgical centers.

BACKGROUND: Operating room (OR) crises are high-acuity events requiring rapid, coordinated management. Medical judgment and decision-making can be compromised in stressful situations, and clinicians may not experience a crisis for many years. A cognitive aid (e.g., checklist) for the most common types of crises in the OR may improve management during unexpected and rare events. While implementation strategies for innovations such as cognitive aids for routine use are becoming better understood, cognitive aids that are rarely used are not yet well understood. We examined organizational context and implementation process factors influencing the use of cognitive aids for OR crises. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional study using a Web-based survey of individuals who had downloaded OR cognitive aids from the websites of Ariadne Labs or Stanford University between January 2013 and January 2016. In this paper, we report on the experience of 368 respondents from US hospitals and ambulatory surgical centers. We analyzed the relationship of more successful implementation (measured as reported regular cognitive aid use during applicable clinical events) with organizational context and with participation in a multi-step implementation process. We used multivariable logistic regression to identify significant predictors of reported, regular OR cognitive aid use during OR crises. RESULTS: In the multivariable logistic regression, small facility size was associated with a fourfold increase in the odds of a facility reporting more successful implementation (p = 0.0092). Completing more implementation steps was also significantly associated with more successful implementation; each implementation step completed was associated with just over 50% higher odds of more successful implementation (p ≤ 0.0001). More successful implementation was associated with leadership support (p < 0.0001) and dedicated time to train staff (p = 0.0189). Less successful implementation was associated with resistance among clinical providers to using cognitive aids (p < 0.0001), absence of an implementation champion (p = 0.0126), and unsatisfactory content or design of the cognitive aid (p = 0.0112). CONCLUSIONS: Successful implementation of cognitive aids in ORs was associated with a supportive organizational context and following a multi-step implementation process. Building strong organizational support and following a well-planned multi-step implementation process will likely increase the use of OR cognitive aids during intraoperative crises, which may improve patient outcomes.

Introduction to section 1: financial considerations.

Achieving fundamental reform of the health care system to improve patient outcomes will take decades of effort and a major shift in financial, medical, and political behaviors that have built up since the beginning of health insurance in the United States. To the extent that the present payment systems contribute to the high cost, poor quality, and lack of accountability that characterizes today's health care delivery system, there is hope that reforms are within reach.